Classical logic must be absolutely valid in order for this statement to be true which means your statement is false.

Consider the proposition P: "classical logic is absolutely valid". I say P is true. You say ~P is true. If you are correct then it must be true that either P or ~P obtains (i.e., law of excluded middle) and must be false that both P and ~P obtain (i.e., law of non-contradiction), which is to say that classical logic is absolutely valid.

That statement is only true on a semantic level though. I said I can say that it is not absolutely valid. I didn't say it was a universal truth that it was not absolutely valid. Therefore, it was not "~P" that I stated. I believe that, depending on the perception of the situation, such laws can either be applied or not. Not that the statement itself is wrong, just whether it can really universally be applied without allowing that it also doesn't apply.

And besides, what does this have to do with moral facts?

Logged

Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my headI put 'em back in the jacket of the one I loveCarry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marblesAnd I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

Classical logic must be absolutely valid in order for this statement to be true which means your statement is false.

Consider the proposition P: "classical logic is absolutely valid". I say P is true. You say ~P is true. If you are correct then it must be true that either P or ~P obtains (i.e., law of excluded middle) and must be false that both P and ~P obtain (i.e., law of non-contradiction), which is to say that classical logic is absolutely valid.

What I was trying to find out is why classical logic leads to a reasonable belief in Christian orthodoxy.

Logged

Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my headI put 'em back in the jacket of the one I loveCarry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marblesAnd I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done